with Henry Eyring

People consistently exhibit time-inconsistent preferences, a phenomenon known as hyperbolic discounting. Prior studies have explored interventions to align current and future preferences, but extant empirical research relies on the assumption that future preferences are time-consistent—meaning that future utility at any future point is weighed equally. We relax that assumption by introducing multiple future time points, allowing future preferences to vary across different time horizons. We examine whether directing attention to specific points on the hyperbolic discounting curve—representing specific time horizons—is more or less effective at shifting current behavior to align with future preferences.

with Jasmijn Bol, Margaret Christ, and Kaitlin Hudspeth

Employees are frequently compared to their peers as if they work under identical conditions. A common tool for enabling such comparisons is relative performance information (RPI), which provides employees with feedback about how their performance ranks relative to others. While RPI can be a powerful motivational tool, most laboratory research assumes a level playing field—an environment in which all employees have equal access to resources, opportunities, and conditions that affect performance, such as task difficulty, available support, and workload. In this study, we relax that assumption to examine the efficacy of RPI when employees face differing task conditions. Specifically, we test whether RPI backfires when performance comparisons occur in a setting marked by task heterogeneity. We also explore whether redesigning RPI to emphasize relative target achievement—rather than absolute performance rankings—can help preserve its motivational value in environments where conditions are perceived as unequal.

with Margaret Christ, Marcy Shepardson, and Tamara Lambert

Echo chambers have become increasingly prevalent, driven in large part by social media algorithms that curate belief-consistent information streams and limit exposure to opposing viewpoints. While the influence of such environments on political and social attitudes has been widely studied, far less is known about their impact on professional decision-making contexts. In particular, it remains unclear how repeated exposure to belief-reinforcing information may shape auditors' professional skepticism, risk assessments, and overall judgment quality. Understanding this relationship is important because auditors must maintain objectivity and resist biases that could compromise the integrity of their evaluations.